Click images to enlarge
Description
Whilst this painting follows the template of all of Joseph Farington's many hundreds of watercolor landscapes (see ebay listings for example), one can see by the very careful drawing and detail of the characters as compared to the details of it's landscape and by their central location - especially the position, nearer and central, of William Turner (possibly his birthday) and bright colors, - that the painting is fundamentally intended as a portrait - totally out of keeping with any of his hundreds of other similar paintings.
Whilst I suggest below that this is because the subjects are JMW Turner and his father, of great import to Farington at the time of the painting in 1797, and the only individuals who could distract Farington away from the detail of his landscape in this particular manner, the painting nevertheless is also centrally focused, in time and space, upon a beach at Hastings which was considered belatedly a potential landing site for a French invasion by Napoleon and exactly at the site of guns installed weeks from the time of the painting... Placed to defend the beach as it is seen here, at a high spring tide, from an invading force - (and therefore the highest tide of the month) -. I would suggest - this too is exactly the same beach that William would have landed on in 1066 and for exactly the same geographical reasons that Farington is demonstrating here. (*Hastings possibly significantly to the West of where it is today in 1066 as there was no evidence of the settlement acrually on the hill of White Rock and to the east in 1797- although in 1066 the nearest town to the beach.) (whilst the 'Priory Stream' might have been navigable in 1066 - 700 boats needed the shallow, calm sloping beach shown in this painting, first to land horses and also the lower beach below it and to seaward at low tide as shown by Hieronymous Grimm in 1784 (as shown) to accommodate the whole fleet quickly. However and paradoxically - the beach itself in 1797 was of no strategic significance, (in the same way that it was perceived by the British in 1066 - due to its shallowness - not suitable for large ships of war), unlike Hastings around the corner - which had its own guns, therefore I believe the belated positioning of guns to defend it on the occasion of this painting (at White Rock), demonstrating that the beach was then regarded significantly, primarily as the historically significant landing site of William in 1066, the guns placed on the headland shown (from which the painting was painted) not because of the beaches' strategic significance in 1797 - the town of Hastings could be bombarded into submission from the sea - but rather I suggest that it was at that time regarded as the beach William landed on in 1066 and as such, as symbolic and totemic to the French as to the British alike. Contrarily the beach was strategically significant in 1066 - to William - due to its shallow, long, sheltered shore - crucially upon which horses could be landed, although clearly the British had not foreseen that William would land in many small boats on this particular shallow beach and had not perceived the strategic significance of the beach as it is seen above. However the shallow beach would not be a factor in 1797 as the French had adopted the tactic of bombarding towns into submission, from the sea. (see Leon Morel Fatio's paintings of the French bombardment and invasion of North Africa) The painting is thus the only first hand evidence we have of such a beach as it would have existed in 1066. And thus it is , as well as being a unique portrait of Turner and his father, a unique depiction explaining exactly why the 'campaign' I propose in 1066 was called by William, 'The Battle of Hastings'. The victory won when William landed his horses on land, here, - a feat never again matched. This painting above any criticism that might be leveled at artists 'whims' or the imaginations of other artists of the day that might have have been subjective fancy and therefore this painting's key attribute, its accuracy - which can be seen by detailed comparison with Grimm's 1784 painting..Thus this painting is now imprinted in the fabric of what is considered as 'The Battle Of Hastings',
Although all seemingly incredible - it is nevertheless , what it is - and such observations all couched in the very accurately rendered detail of the painting by the military artist Farington from a time before the scene and landscape was later modified to create ground to build on and protect it from such tidal inundation - as it is seen in the present painting, with the creation of the 'America ground', (primarily by rope-makers who needed a long run (200 fathoms of flat ground).. - the site of the landing of 1066 lost beneath. (The beach of the America Ground, with its sea-front 'rope-walk' actually depicted in paintings of the early 1800s as straight, steep and battered by waves, contrasting with the shallow, calm 'half-moon' bay and beach as shown in the present painting - an image supported by that of Grimm's painting at low tide of 1784 (shown). The 1827 map of the America ground refers to the area as "The old Sea Beach - now with buildings on" - and in court proceedings of 1829 to evict residents of the America Ground, the defense declared that the land had once previously been under the sea but had " for a vast period been left as dry and desert waste"- (in 1800 the life-expectancy was 34 - so the scene of the present painting, 32 years prior to the trial, would indeed have been a 'vast period' - i.e beyond living memory in 1829) So here, in the present painting, we see the area of dry land - as shown on maps of the 1820s and as described in the 1829 court proceedings, then with a town on it - rather here, shown with the sea over it !! - exactly as described in the court proceedings, and the sea also covering the adjacent area to the East of 'The America Ground' - marked as the town of Hastings on the same maps - (on the other side of the Priory Stream) - Moreover in the present painting boats moored on the beach indicate the permanence of the high waterline in 1797.. Interestingly this all implies that the beach itself was built up by its occupants over the early 1800s - and one would suppose especially by 'Messrs Breeds & CO' - who according to 'Historic Hastings' and evidenced in trial proceedings -had a company making rope (as well as property developing) and needed a stretch of dry land of at least some 400 yards (150 -200 'fathoms') upon which to manufacture it and who laid claim to much of the land referred to as 'The America Ground'. - - In fact it is recorded that Priory Bridge - on the higher part of the beach as shown in the present painting - itself, was washed away by the sea in 1820 and a new brick bridge built to replace the old wooden one. [This actually a reflection - not so much of the height of the tide - but rather the extent to which the land -called 'The America Ground' had been artificially built up- reclaimed - above sea level - so that the normal tide pushed water up and over it]. Properties built on the beach were likewise washed away by the sea. Thus 'The America Ground' as it existed between 1800 and 1834 would also have covered the shallow beach of 1066 - as seen here for the first time..It also means that not only is modern Hastings beneath the sea as it appears in the present painting but so too was the land on which the 'The America Ground' before it had been built. (the latter itself reclaimed from the sea) [ likely that the 'crown' had let the reclaimed beach be privately developed and seeing that it had survived inundation - decided to claim the land for itself as it became more valuable also with the development of Hastings ]
Over the last 1000 years sea levels have been receding on the south coast due to 'bounce-back, from the last ice age - and this would aid any such land reclamation - and would also mean the scene as shown in the present painting would have been more likely at any high tide in 1066. Likewise I have found another picture of the Hastings end of the beach with the tide touching the houses seen on the castle headland from about 1800. So the scene as presented in the present painting - with what would become the America Ground and subsequently modern Hastings, was indeed covered by water before the early 1800s as described in the trial proceedings above and as described as the 'Old Sea Beach' on the map of the America Ground.
This unique accurate painting by Joseph Farington in 1797 demonstrates now for the first time in 1000 years exactly why The Battle of Hastings was called the 'Battle of Hastings' - William would have had to have known a year before the conquest - exactly which beach he was going to land his horses on - and he would have assembled his cavalry and designed and built his boats and armada to land on a specific beach. Exactly as D-Day -1944. The present painting is unique in being the only first hand evidence of that beach as it existed in 1066. And it is 'Hastings Beach'. (but in 1797 - at the time of the present painting - it was much different than it is now (under the modern town of Hastings)- although the same in 1797 as it was in 1066)
Hence the 1000 year old name of William's campaign, as it was given that name a year before William's landing. It was going to be
'THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS'
just as the 'Invasion or Battle of Normandy' in 1944 was always going to be given that name from its planning a year before - both campaigns recognizing their key goal as landing their army on the beach. William especially so - if he could land his super weapon - of the cavalry -technically more difficult than anything achieved in 1944 and giving his army greater superiority than anything the allies had in 1944 over their enemy. One might add that only William and his closest aide would have known his target beach. It might well have been that the fleet had to follow him to the beach, such was the level of secrecy required. Much is made of the fact that he stopped half-way to eat his 'breakfast'. . I suggest he probably had to, simply because those behind him did not know where they were going - but were rather following him. In all likelihood mis-information about the landing site would have been spread widely. Pevensey for example - as seen on the Bayeux Tapestry- constructed years after the event in England - the target of such mis-information from William's camp in Normandy. - After all - the English would have been aware of the construction of 700 ships across the channel for over a year- highly likely it could have been viewed first hand from their own shores due to the requirement of steaming the boats planks- a process which would produce immense amount of smoke! Indeed - such rumors - spread by William's sympathizers around Pevensey - might have resulted in Pevensey being defended in 1066 - allowing an unopposed landing on the beach shown at Hastings. One would have to ask why such a telegraphed invasion for 9 months, was landed totally unopposed. Most likely the success of mis-information - a success manifest in all of the many subsequent opposing and conflicting accounts of the campaign. One might add that nobody would have seen William's fleet arrive from the east in 1066 as Hastings was then to the west of the landing site - (contemporary accounts indicating that they sailed beneath cliffs) whereas it would have been spotted in Hastings if its intended site was Pevensey. I suggest 1797 and the potential invasion by Napoleon was an an acid test - of the likely invasion site by William in 1066 and the mounting of guns on the headland shown here was proof of the perceived significance of the site - as shown here for the first time in 1000 years. Prior to 1790's the site had been inaccessible but the opening of new roads allowed Turner and Farington access to it from London in a day.
TODAY IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THERE WAS A BATTLE OF HASTINGS IN 1066 WHICH WAS PIVOTAL IN CHANGING THE COUNTRY. HOWEVER THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE CASE IF IT WAS NOT FOR THE DEPICTION OF THE EVENT IN THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY. THIS IMAGE HAS, like the name of the battle as 'The battle of Hastings' GRIPPED THE PUBLIC PSYCHE SINCE 1066. INDEED OUR PERCEPTION OF THE EVENT HAS CHANGED AS THE TAPESTRY ITSELF HAS BEEN STUDIED IN MORE DETAIL WITH MODERN METHODS and the origin of the image itself has been questioned. THE ICONIC IMAGE - AND TURNING POINT IN THE COUNTRY'S HISTORY - FOR LONG PORTRAYED IN THE 1000 YEARS SINCE THE BATTLE - OF HAROLD BEING KILLED BY AN ARROW THROUGH HIS EYE HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE UNLIKELY WITH THE CLOSER STUDY OF THE TAPESTRY WITH MODERN METHODS. IT HAS BECOME EVIDENT THAT THE TAPESTRY HAS BEEN MODIFIED AND CHANGED OVER TIME. - THUS NO LONGER QUITE THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE BATTLE. IT IS and was ALSO FUNDAMENTALLY LIMITED BY THE LACK OF PERSPECTIVE - a technique in art not invented until the Renaissance.
IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUGGESTED THAT AT THE TIME OF THE BATTLE - THE BATTLE ITSELF WAS NOT EVEN REGARDED AS IMPORTANT - AS IT LACKS RECORD IN LITERATE ESTABLISHMENTS AROUND THE COUNTRY AT THE TIME.
THE QUESTION THUS ARISES - HAVE GENERATIONS BEEN MISLED OVER THE LAST 1000 YEARS. WAS THERE EVEN A BATTLE OF HASTINGS THAT JUSTIFIES THE NAME.? GIVEN ALSO THAT IT HAS BEEN PROPOSED THAT WILLIAM FIRST LANDED AT PEVENSEY AS RECORDED ON THE WRITING OF THE TAPESTRY ITSELF , PEVENSEY quite a few miles from Hastings, AND THE BATTLE itself TOOK PLACE MILES TO THE NORTH OF HASTINGS, at or around 'Battle'. AFTER ALL - IT HAD ONLY BECOME TO BE KNOWN AS 'THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS' SOME TWENTY YEARS AFTER THE EVENT. - IN 1086.
IN MODERN TIMES ONE OF THE KEY PROBLEMS WITH IDENTIFYING THE BATTLE - AS 'THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS', IS THAT IT HAS BEEN THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS NOT A RELIABLE LANDING SITE FOR WILLIAM'S ARMADA CLOSE TO OR ACTUALLY AT HASTINGS. IF THERE WAS SUCH A LANDING SITE - ONE COULD SAY WITH CERTAINTY THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN WILLIAM'S INTENDED TARGET FROM THE OUTSET OF PLANNING THE CAMPAIGN - WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF HIS SHIPS OVER A PERIOD OF NINE MONTHS - LIKELY THAT THE SHIPS THEMSELVES WERE DESIGNED TO LAND ON ONE PARTICULAR BEACH - BECAUSE THE KEY STRATEGIC REQUIREMENT OF HIS ARMADA WOULD HAVE BEEN THE UNLOADING OF HORSES - AS SUCH A MOUNTED CAVALRY WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPENSIVE AND LOGISTICALLY DIFFICULT TO SOURCE, AND EVEN TRAIN - THEIR LANDING REQUIRING A SHELTERED SHALLOW SLOPING BEACH - AND FUNDAMENTAL THEREFORE TO HIS WHOLE CONQUEST PLAN OVER MORE THAN A YEAR.
ERGO HE MUST HAVE HAD A PARTICULAR, INTENDED LANDING SITE IN MIND BEFORE HE STARTED -EVEN BUILDING HIS NAVY.
THUS I SUGGEST THE PRESENT PAINTING IS THE ONLY FIRST HAND ACCOUNT AND EVIDENCE OF A BEACH ON THE SOUTH COAST WHICH WOULD HAVE FITTED WILLIAM'S PLANS FROM THE OUTSET. THUS EXPLAINING EXACTLY WHY THE CAMPAIGN WAS KNOWN FROM THE OUTSET AS THE 'BATTLE OF HASTINGS' - JUST AS D-DAY WAS KNOWN AS THE INVASION OF NORMANDY - BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE BATTLE AND WHY THE NAME HAS PERSISTED FOR A 1000 YEARS.
THE LOGIC FOR THIS CAN ALSO BE SEEN THROUGH THE TELESCOPE OF HISTORY - IN PARTICULAR THAT OTHER SUCH INVASIONS FROM LATER TECHNICALLY SUPERIOR FORCES WOULD BE DEFEATED BY THE WEATHER (THE SPANISH ARMADA AND THE TWO FRENCH ATTEMPTS - NOT EVEN RECORDED IN 1796 AND 1797, ALTHOUGH SIGNIFICANTLY ARMED FOR PURPOSE WHEN THEY SET OUT), ALL DEFEATED BY AN INABILITY EVEN TO MAKE LANDFALL - THE SEA-STATE AND BEACHES HAD DEFEATED THEM - THAT COULD MUCH MORE EASILY HAVE BEEN A FATE THAT COULD HAVE BEFALLEN WILLIAM - with 700 years less technology to rely on and with exactly the same goal in mind, - IN ADDITION, A WILLIAM WHO RELIED ON HORSES (AS CLEARLY SHOWN IN THE BAYEAUX TAPESTRY)- RATHER THAN THE CANNON AND GUNS OF LATER INVADING FORCES. HORSES THAT SOMEHOW HAD TO BE SET ASHORE.
I POSE NOW FROM THIS SIMPLE POWERFUL LOGISTICALLY BASED ARGUMENT THAT THE 'BATTLE OF HASTINGS' GAINED ITS NAME NOT FROM ANY PARTICULAR BATTLE BUT FROM WILLIAM'S NAME FOR THE CAMPAIGN - AND HIS TARGET FROM THE OUTSET - 9 MONTHS BEFORE HE LEFT NORMANDY AND PROBABLY MUCH LONGER IN THE PLANNING, HE MAKING SHIPS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO LAND -ESPECIALLY HIS HORSES -ON THE PARTICULAR BEACH as shown for the first time in the present painting - it also showing similar boats still being used on the beach in 1797 . THIS INDEED ANSWERS ANOTHER CONUNDRUM AS TO THE NATURE OF THE INVASION. WILLIAM HAD TO BUILD A NAVY FROM SCRATCH TO DO IT. HE DID NOT START WITH A FLEET OF SHIPS - AS HAD THE FRENCH AND SPANISH LATER. I SUGGEST HE BUILT THIS FLEET SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF LANDING HIS HORSES ON THIS SPECIFIC BEACH. BOTH IN TERMS OF DESIGN AND SIZE. HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN EXACTLY THE SIZE OF THE BEACH AND THE STEADY SEA STATE AT HIGH TIDE - EXACTLY AS SEEN IN THE PRESENT PAINTING, ARISING FROM THE SHELTER OF THE WHITE ROCK AS SHOWN IN GREAT DETAIL FRAMING THE PRESENT PAINTING.
THE PROBLEM IN ENVISAGING 1066 FROM A MODERN PERSPECTIVE IS THAT THE SOUTH COAST HAS CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE 1066 , NOT ONLY WITH NATURAL PROCESSES SUCH AS LONG-SHORE DRIFT OF SHINGLE, ACCENTUATED BY TUMULTUOUS STORMS WHICH BOTH WIPED OUT TOWNS AND CUT TOWNS - PREVIOUSLY PORTS, COMPLETELY OFF FROM THE SEA, BUT ALSO THE SEA-FRONT AND BEACHES AT HASTINGS HAVE BEEN CHANGED BEFORE THERE WAS ANY RECORD OF WHAT THE BEACHES WERE LIKE BEFORE THE MODIFICATIONS.
I SHOW HERE - IN THE PRESENT PAINTING A UNIQUE AND ACCURATE PICTURE OF A BEACH AT OR CLOSE TO THE HASTINGS OF 1066 TOGETHER DEPICTED WITH THE SHELTERED CALM FROM THE ENGLISH CHANNEL as evidenced by the boats heeling in the channel - WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED IN 1066 FOR WILLIAM TO LAND -ESPECIALLY HIS HORSES. IN MANY WAYS IT IS AN UNUSUAL PAINTING, OTHER ARTISTS HAVE PAINTED HASTINGS FROM THE WHITE ROCK (BEFORE IT WAS REMOVED IN 1834) (SEE ALSO GRIMM'S 1784 PAINTING SHOWN ETC) - SO TO EMPHASIZE ITS DRAMATIC ROCKS TO SEAWARD) - however none showing the contrasting calm of the bay at high water -this, at first sight would have been like a red rag to a bull for any invading force - perhaps it is shown here at a spring tide. (Was the invasion a actually spring tide? - late september does seem an unusual selection given the potential for rough seas - the 1066 invasion possibly needing uniquely a 'Spring tide in the dark' - to maintain secrecy? (It appears that indeed the invasion was believed to be a Spring Tide - full moon at Pevensey. In fact the tide at this beach would have been a matter of minures later due to its position west of Pevensey) ) BUT I SUGGEST FARINGTON'S PAINTING - ALTHOUGH ONE MIGHT THINK IT A PORTRAIT OF THE TWO SITTERS - IS ACTUALLY EQUALLY AN ACCURATE PAINTING BY A MILITARY ARTIST OF A BEACH WHICH Was perceived by the military commander at the time to be in NEED of DEFENDING FROM MILITARY INVASION BY NAPOLEON- AND IT SHOWS PRECISELY WHY CANNON WERE SITED AT THE LOCATION OF THE ARTIST) MOREOVER - THE HEADLAND FROM WHICH THE BEACH AND ITS SHELTER FROM THE CHANNEL, IS UNIQUELY VIEWED IN THE PAINTING, WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT ALSO IN 1066 AS EVIDENCED FROM A MAP OF THE PLACE reconstructed to show the likely detail of the coast in 1250 (not shown but available online). THE HEADLAND PROTECTING IT FROM STORM AND LONG-SHORE DRIFT AND THUS WOULD HAVE SHELTERED THE BEACH FROM THE ENGLISH CHANNEL IN 1066 EXACTLY AS SHOWN ACCURATELY IN THE PRESENT PAINTING OF 1797. The beach might not have been used by deep keel boats because it was shallow, hence Hastings, relying on fishing might have grown elsewhere - however - long shallow draft boats - such as those William would have used, are shown here landed, indeed stacked on the shore in the present painting of 1797 just as seen in the Bayeux tapestry.
Thus I contend that William's intended conquest - planned for over a year - would from the outset be aimed at the beach shown in the present painting - arguably the site called Hastings in 1066 or Hastings being the closest point on any map from 1066, which William could strategically and logistically focus his conquest on. Indeed William would surely have regarded the beach itself as 'HASTINGS' even if the settlement itself was not situated exactly on the beach at that time.
This painting demonstrates in particular the sheltered sea-state contrasted with the simultaneously blustery English channel with boats heeling toward the top right, and shallow sloping beach required for William to land his horses. Indeed it gives much more information in regard to the circumstances of the landing than does the Bayeux Tapestry and thus giving more useful and complimentary information regarding the conquest in many respects than the tapestry itself. It of itself would have been invaluable to military planners siting the guns on the headland shown weeks after the present painting was made and defending the same beach from an invasion by Napoleon. The tapestry itself which might have been reconstructed from second-hand accounts and indeed the art of the day in 1066 - itself lacking the perspective developed by 1797 - a perspective which could convey the precise 'Lay of the Land'. This painting is thus the only first hand evidence of a site that William could aim his invasion at. There is no other such primary evidence for any other site. I would argue that this painting is thus unique and key in justifiably naming the Battle of Hastings - 'THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS'. And more-over, I suggest that this is the reason the name has stuck for a thousand years. Thus in many ways Williams achievement - the conquest - has been underestimated through modern history. He tailored his army to suit the conditions, key to that being a sheltered beach where the sea-state would be known. And designing seaworthy boats of shallow draft which could make use of it.
One would add that the contemporary description of the landing in the chronicle as 'Near Hastings' is correct and there is no similar primary evidence to support other accounts, such as the first hand and accurate evidence shown here. Moreover the Guide to Hastings of 1797 supports this notion as it states that ships landed 3 tonnes regularly on this beach to supply Lime kilns situated behind the buildings shown in this picture, (the landing site marked as 'The Haulaway' on a map from 1798 (Hastings Observer) can indeed be seen as a mound in front of the houses on the castle headland, in detail, in both the present painting and that of Grimm, in 1784,, also showing identifiably the same buildings FROM A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, in a similar scene as the present painting (AS SHOWN) but his painting rather shown at low tide and from a perspective which crucially does not show the beach - especially as seen here with boats moored on it at high tide - as exactly would have been the case at the moment of the landing in 1066. (albeit that Grimm's painting shows a massive beach area suitable for landing 700 boats as the tide changed)
THE PAINTING THUS FILLS IN EXTENSIVE ACCURATE DETAIL NOT SHOWN IN THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY- INCLUDING MEASURE - NOT LEAST BECAUSE THE PERSPECTIVAL ART REQUIRED DID NOT ITSELF EXIST IN 1066 AND INDEED DID NOT EXIST UNTIL THE RENAISSANCE. ONE CAN THUS SEE THE POWER OF FARINGTON'S (THIS) PAINTING IN REVEALING TRUTH AND FIRST HAND EVIDENCE OF THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS. SUCH FIRST HAND EVIDENCE AND THE LIGHT FARINGTON'S PAINTING THROWS ON THE BATTLE WAS NOT EVEN AVAILABLE IN 1066. HENCE HIS IMPORT AS AN ARTIST AT VALENCIENNES - 3 YEARS PRIOR TO THE PRESENT PAINTING AND TO THE MILITARY AT THE TIME OF THE PRESENT PAINTING IN RESPECT OF SITING GUNS ON THE HEADLAND HE IS HERE PAINTING. (AND IN HIS SKETCHBOOK WHICH INFORMS THIS PAINTING - NOW IN THE VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM)
IN SUMMARY - THIS IS THE INVASION BEACH OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR - PAINTED BY A MILITARY ARTIST WHO COULD SEE IT IN A WAY THAT WILLIAM COULD NOT HAVE SEEN IT HIMSELF IN 1066. FARINGTON'S EYES THOSE OF A MILITARY ARTIST OF 1797 PAINTING TO INFORM THE SITING OF GUNS COVERING THE BEACH FROM INVASION BY NAPOLEON IN 1797. THUS USING A PERSPECTIVE NOT EVEN 'SEEN' IN 1066 NOR EXPRESSED THROUGH VISUAL MEANS. (Julian Jaynes would argue that humans would have seen things in 1066 exactly as they expressed them in their art - in particular - things we take for granted today, such as perspective,- which we today regard as universal - may well not have existed in 1066)
As a consequence of the use of perspective by Farington in the present painting - it is SO MUCH MORE INFORMATIVE ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE LANDING OF 1066 THAN ANY CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENT OR THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY ITSELF - BOTH SOURCES LACKING THE PERSPECTIVAL VIEW SHOWN HERE.
In 1797 - I propose - from the evidence presented below - the time of the present painting - I'd suggest this to be the exact site that William The Conqueror first set foot in England. The site would at that time have been self evident and therefore not worth officially recording (other than for the military perspective as suggested for the present painting, especially as a proposed site for defensive guns) .. A successful landing of William's armored cohorts and their horses in 1066 would have required a shallow sloping beach and calm water. Such an armada could not risk leaving France, ESPECIALLY WILLIAM'S ARMADA BUILT OVER A PERIOD OF 9 MONTHS AND MORE THAN A YEAR IN THE PLANNING with no knowledge of the sea-state at Hastings - and risk a landing in swell on a steep shore - Having left France - there would be no turning back -- So the exact invasion site - like the D -Day landings (even with the technology and maneuverability of ships in 1944 (and thence without the need to land horses)- when many were lost to the sea - Or the failed landings of the Spanish armada or other attempted failed invasions of the French in 1796 and 7 ) was critical. This painting shows for the first time not only that a shallow calm sheltered beach existed at Hastings suitable for William's armada to land whilst simultaneously the English channel is shown rough as evidenced by boats heeling toward the horizon, but also indicates with a high degree of probability the exact site of the invasion as it was depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry - and possibly painted from the same vantage point of the artists who recorded the events of 1066. Indeed - the calm water shown here is shown as a key feature of the Bayeux Tapestry It was particularly necessary to land the horses - which effectively won the battle of Hastings for the Normans. There would have been carnage in the landing even before any battle had the boats not been flat when they first landed. There in all probability would not have been a battle had the horses been stood on sloping wet wood - before they were winched over the gunnels.
Significantly -the current painting also shows that the site is now lost to history due to both the explosive removal of the headland from which the current painting of 1797 was painted in 1834 and the rapid building of modern Hastings over the landing site soon after 1797 - so that the shallow calm bay as shown here in 1797- suitable for the landing of William's armada and the unloading of his horses as depicted in shallow calm water and flat inclined beach - as depicted repeatedly in the Bayeux Tapestry - no longer existed and was wiped from history without record (inadvertently)- other than it is shown here by Farington - (an accurate artist as used for his accuracy by the military) - in this painting - the site subsequently again lost to history - and not revealed since, for another 224 years, by the revelation in the present painting..(Perhaps Britain has been doing its best to forget the invasion)
In 1797 England was again under threat of invasion from France - indeed the French actually invaded Fishguard in the last such invasion of mainland British soil in that very year and sent an invasion force to Ireland in the winter of 1796 in order to join the sympathetic Irish and provide a springboard to invade Britain......More-over it was only the weather and lack of a suitable landing site that destroyed both armadas sent by the French to invade England in 1796 and 1797 - demonstrating just how important the beach as it is depicted here in 1797 would have been to the success of the Conquerors invasion 700 years prior especially his ability to off-load horses - in 1066 the equivalent of canon-albeit an unlikely invasion site in 1797 - the French adopting bombardment tactics by that time, and there being no population on beach to bombard.... and Turner was patriotic and perhaps somewhat obsessed with the sea defenses of England (not surprising given the potential threat of imminent invasion and the failed attempts of the French in this year ), painting most of them and desperate with egotistical and professional ambition, following the success of his first major oil painting of a seascape as exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1796 (with the aid of Joseph Farington's control of its exposure at exhibition) to gain the King's official commission to paint the country's, then crucial and pivotal naval campaign against the continent, which was the only matter of concern in determining the future existence of the country at that particular instant. (a commission he didn't get until belatedly being asked to record some of the scenes retrospectively - so in this context he would have had to be present at any likely engagement to gain first hand imagery of the conflict - hence a good reason for his presence at Hastings in 1797) Indeed, in this respect there were skirmishes with the French around Hastings and the crew of a French raider was captured and landed at Hastings in 1797 and were made prisoners. Added to this, a battery of 3 guns captured by Nelson at the battle of Cape St.Vincent, also in 1797 - were being built on the headland of Hastings at 'White Rock' in the same year (as shown in Farington's 1797 sketchbook.) and about a 100 yards away from the site of the present painting)...... Thus for many reasons both personal and professional, Wild Horses could not have stopped Turner visiting Hastings in 1797, driven that he was......nor Joseph Farington, a veteran military artist of the 7 year war and a close ally of Turner at the Royal academy...1797 was an amazing and turbulent year in the defense of our realm.. However returning to the subject matter of the present painting - against a backdrop of such turmoil (not to mention the 'Bread Riots' of 1797 in Hastings), that original 1066 landscape - with its unique footprints, has been lost to history before the location was officially recorded in any way - so the matter is until now open to debate as to exactly where the Conqueror first set foot. However I'd suggest that - in this very painting - here Farington, Turner and his father are re-enacting William the Conqueror's first steps on English soil, an immensely symbolic occasion - meteorically projected - by the events at Fishguard that year, and the attempted invasion of Ireland the previous year, into the forefront of the country's collective psyche in 1797...There was a genuine fear of French invasion at the time . And I include Farington in this re-enactment as William The Conqueror undoubtedly had his own military artist record the event in the Bayeaux tapestry 800 years prior, perhaps recording the scene from this very spot !!!!! Indeed the picture as seen here might have been a common pilgrimage for the educated patriotic before 1800 and the main reason why Hastings became a tourist resort in the first place . It was highlighted on the frontispiece of the new 'Guide to Hastings' being described as the towns main attraction in 1797.....interestingly the 1804 publication of the guide showing the area to have been built up significantly since 1797 and two 1795 maps of the location which both show dwellings as they are located in the present painting. (The present painting having the advantage of showing the exact location of the waterline and the elevation contours. - which can be cross referenced with maps)
The 'Priory Bridge' shown in the present painting also possibly seen in the Bayeaux tapestry - looking to have arches as also shown there. The priory itself dating from around that time - although the bridge must have existed before.. It is extremely fortuitous that Farington includes the Priory Bridge in the present painting as today it locates the geography precisely in relation to that of 1066 and the river beneath - probably remnant of glacial outflow from the last Ice Age and which would map the line of deepest approach to Hastings from the sea and which was recorded in the reconstructed map of 1250 together with the sheltered bay seen in the present painting, here shown with boats on the shore where the river flowing beneath the bridge entered the bay from the land (suggesting the presence of a quasi-permanent beach) - which Farington also shows here. It is highly likely that Farington knew the relevance of the bridge and in the painting moved the sail out of the way to include it - also probably due to his known predilection for geographic and perhaps historical accuracy albeit that it is a tiny detail in the landscape and also tiny in comparison to detail of the sitters. It would be no problem for him to have left it behind the sail.
To us Brits 'The Conqueror's' first steps - are a little like the exact location of Columbus's or Cabot's first step in mainland USA... But their location had - until the discovery and interpretation of this very painting - been lost to history. More than appropriate, indeed perhaps relevant, that Turner and his father's name were both William. Interestingly it has been proven that there is at least one direct descendant of William the Conqueror running around the country today in general circulation - and still acting like he owns the place !!!!! the event does indeed have a lot to answer for..... He still thinks he's the guv'nor....his paticular claim to fame , though evidently being that he can eat 4 meat and potato pies in about 30 seconds.......that's the measure of the man.......
As much as a painting of the foremost British artist of all time (and his father) - this painting - it transpires - is thus a rich accurate historical record of Hastings as it appeared in 1797, also especially as it contrasts with the modern day town which has much changed the landscape - remembering that it is here painted by the foremost accurate landscape painter of the day. (according to the British Military) .(if one wishes to get ones bearings in this landscape of Hastings as it is shown here in 1797- 'Priory Bridge' is drawn by Farington just behind the sail of the boat as shown and on the road line from the castle headland whilst much of the town is under the water - and the boat) And CRUCIALLY IN RESPECT OF THE VALUE OF THE PRESENT PAINTING - I'd suggest for those looking for the remains of the bridge today - this painting gives as good an indication of where it was in 1797 and in 1066 as one will find - and moreso I'd suggest it demonstrates exactly where William The Conquerer is likely to have first landed in 1066, showing the line of deepest approach to Hastings from the sea as also seen on the first map from 1250 (providing that unlike Turner he deployed his rudder appropriately - otherwise he'd end up grounded like Turner as he's shown here - and in the same spot ) And of equal relevance the calm water shown here in the bay (as also shown in the earliest map of 1250) just as it would have been in 1066 allowing William's armada to land - is shown here significantly contrasted with the rougher water in the English Channel as demonstrated by boats heeling in the wind in the top right of the painting. It might have been the only such place on the south coast suitable. This is the only historical record of the site and also demonstrating admirably its key features in respect of William's 1066 landing.
Highly likely that this is exactly why Farington chose this exact location for his painting of Turner ! And why Turner and his father agreed to sit here for the painting. And of course even without Turner's professional and patriotic reasons for being their - the events of 1066 are one of the primary drives for people to have first visited Hastings as tourists....and still is. (It may have been why Hieronymous Grimm was visiting and painting Hastings in 1784 - his 'job specification' - also - like Farington - known as an accurate painter, to paint and record things of historical import (like a newspaper photographer), unfortunately his similarly accurate painting of the scene - just missing the beach where William would have landed and showing the site at low tide, thus not revealing the waterline or the calm that would have come with the high tide.
One of the beauties of this painting is that it doesn't require an art expert to validate it. I purchased this in 2018 in the hope that information would come to light which allowed one to identify the bright snappily, period dressed individuals who appeared to be the focus of the painting. After about a year of reading Joseph Farington's diaries and about him, one name kept repeating. JMW Turner. Although only recently did I discover more information that could tie Turner to this painting through determining its exact date.. Indeed the identification of the two 'gentlemen in the boat at Hastings' (auctioneer's title) as Turner and his father, rests in part on my recent discovery and realization (after 3 years of having acquired the painting from Hansons in London) of what is the rudder arm, shown resting on the port side stern of the boat in the painting and the recent subsequent discovery of exactly the same detail in a painting by Joseph Farington - now at the Yale Center For British art. (shown) - so to draw parallels between those 2 paintings and the implication for the present painting of the broken rudder arm.. This combined with the discovery of the very similar landscape with the same buildings by Grimm in 1784 but with the detail re-positioned from a very slightly different perspective shows the present painting to be very real and accurate - a trait of Farington for which he was employed by the British army in 1793 at the siege of Valenciennes and for which his work is kept in the Victoria and Albert Museum as a detailed and precise historical record - whereas in the Tate, Yale etc his work is kept also for its artistic merit. These discoveries all very fortuitous as the 223 year old landscape no longer exists and such accuracy making me believe the landscape nevertheless did exist at the time of the painting and so to further research the history of the scene and reveal the mystery behind the headland from which the painting was made, the rocks of which frame the painting the color of which I originally thought had just faded over time but which it turns out not only did exist in 1797 but are actually this color and which again are rendered accurately in great detail, and indeed the mystery of the seascape - which like the headland no longer exists (but for a completely different reason). And thus use this knowledge to tie Farington's sketchbook - written and painted in 1797 - directly to this painting and so to the age of the 'gentlemen in the boat' if they were indeed Turner and his father. (at the same time solving the mystery of the location of the sketch as shown in his sketch book in the Victoria & Albert Museum - and adding significantly to its context and relevance to the Hastings of 1797) (the sketch book kept in the Victoria and Albert Museum precisely because it is thought to be an accurate historical record - especially so with his detailed related written notes as shown)
It is not difficult to identify as being by Farington because of its detailed drawing and similarities to his other similar paintings and on the face of it, as a landscape by Farington, it would not have a great value. However - if one identifies the individuals in the boat as Turner and his father, there is a paradigm shift in its context. Farington known as important to Turner and someone whose attention was reciprocated - as recorded by Turner's writing on a painting he executed at the request of Farington - in particular a view of the lake district where Farington resided for a number of years, based upon a request of Farington in a visit to Turner at his house in Maiden lane. . To cause this paradigm shift - the only question one has to answer is - Does this look like Turner and his father? In this way - I think the painting really belongs in public ownership - as the public can readily see the likeness of the sitters to Turner and his father. It needs no specialist knowledge about the history or technique of the painting to see its value in the context described above. However - if the subject is Turner and his father, not only does this dramatically increase its value - it elevates Farington's art to a whole new level. It means that Farington's import as a diarist in revealing detail of artists at the Royal Academy and in particular Turner, is translated into a visual depiction of its greatest artist and through the same eyes that describe him at length in writing and indeed relate to him in person - indeed by the man who one could argue - first brought Turner to the world by hanging his paintings in the most prestigious locations - and his relationship to Turner thus also evidenced directly by the occasion of the execution of the present painting. Viewed in this wider light - a personal comment by Farington on Turner - and such attention reciprocated, - the painting entirely makes sense (a picture paints a thousand words) - indeed the painting perhaps reciprocal to Turner's gift. It is plain and straightforward. Here is the great man Turner doing what he liked doing best - with his father, who he loved especially at this particular time and on this particular occasion, given the troubles with his mother, - in a place he loved doing it. This is Turner 'at play', free from his worries (other than the boat lacks its rudder arm and is therefore possibly about to capsize in the shallows - accounting for his expression) or his professional commitment to painting. Moreover painted at the Hastings he loved as expounded in his many paintings of the place and by a renowned accurate landscape painter of the day who was important to Turner and who Turner also painted for. In a way - it would be more surprising if Farington had not painted Turner. In the context described above in 1797 - the painting suggests itself. I think Farington had the motive and probably the opportunity to do the deed. Until very recently the evidence had remained lost in diverse locations around the world. Below I bring the evidence together to place Farington at the scene and at the time. Especially with thanks to The Yale center for British Art. I'm sure somebody could extract some DNA from smudges on the painting.
For my small part, I'd make the simple observation that there is only one other portrait of Turner's father and it looks very much like the helm in this painting;(also compare the detail of this painting to that of Grimm 1784 to show how accurate Farington is in capturing detail - It is easy to see that this landscape is exactly similar to Grimm's 1784 depiction of the place - even though, like Turner's father's portrait by Linnel the present image is drawm from a different perspective) just as I propose one can see Linnell's portrait of Turner's father is the same person as shown at the helm here) with the caveat that the present painting adds to this likeness through the use of color, especially a ruddy complexion as described in Turner's biography - this adding to the specific points of similarity - especially his fat lower lip, none existent top lip, high cheek bones, joined by shading to a strong jaw line (a jaw described as 'Jutting' by his good friend, artist Henry Trimmer and shown clearly and in complimentary and contiguous manner to other facial features as seen in both images here), big hooked nose, forward combed hair (contrasting with all the other sailors and fishermen in the 2 other contemporary pictures painted by Farington) and contrasting with Turner as here shown (Turner's father wearing a wig as also shown in his only portrait), his similar jowls - here additionally accentuated and characteristic of the 15 years between his only portrait done by John Linnell RA and the present picture - a distinctive mole or defect on his left lower lip - and last but not least - his neatly tied cravat - I posit here painted specifically to contrast with the cravat of second individual in the boat (Turner) who is described in his biography as always having a 'slovenly tied cravat' (and this also evidenced in his only known photograph). In addition we have the memory of William from a long time friend, Henry Scott Trimmer - an artist and friend, who described him retrospectively simply from recollection as a 'strong man, with hooked nose like a parrot, jutting jaw and small blue eyes'. - this carcarure all seen in the present painting, his eyes indeed appearing small and his jaw distinctively jutting. He, in the present painting, looking swarthy in stature with strong muscular hands. In fact I would argue that the image of the present painting is a better caricature of Trimmer's recollection of William than is his portrait by Linnell. (the only portrait known of William) Particularly emphasized are his hooked nose like a parot, jutting jaw and small eyes. In addition the 'strong' aspect of William is shown through the robust stature of the helm, combined with his muscular hands. This better caricature might be due to the use of color (which also adds a bright ruddy complexion as also described in Turner's biograhy) , Farington's much greater personal contact and familiarity with William than Linnell's, the front-on profile Farington chooses here, or the need by Farington to caricature the helm with respect to Turner, because of the smaller size of the image within his landscape requiring accentuated or more overt cues, so as to identify the sitters to a wider audience ; for example and especially as exemplified by the more neatly tied cravat of the helm and the size of Turner. Both facts known in relation to Turner and his father, and perhaps the forward combed hair of the helm which is evidently contrast with the style of the day as shown by Farington on all the other sailors he depicts.
In support of this strong likeness of the helm to the portrait of Turner's father...I suggest he is here contrasted with Turner himself - in part using caricature - especially and in particular so that he can be identified in the boat by Farington at a distance - which would ordinarily be very difficult whilst simultaneously including him within the iconic backdrop of Hastings castle, painted in Farington's trademark and commercially successful style of landscape and clearly his forte ), so the painting managing to combine Farington's strengths and successful commercial template for which he had repute (all of Farington's 100 or so listings on ebay are landscapes), with a portrait of Turner in the activity and environment which he clearly enjoyed. It might be noted in passing that by 1795 - improvements in the road system by the addition of a toll road between London and Hastings had recently reduced the travel time from 3 to 1 day - making Hastings much more accessible than it had been and this would account for the visit of Turner and Farington in 1797 which was also the year in which a new expanded travel guide to the area was published)) (Turner wasn't born holding a paintbrush and it is entirely likely that one might see him enjoying himself without one in his hand - he did hide in boats as a child - just to ride them down the Thames)
Thus the two figures in the boat should be considered both individually and together as one entity and in this particular activity and at this particular location in considering each of their identities, and I'd argue the contrast and similarities between them, the location and activity gives strong support for their identification as Turner and his father. Especially - Turner is here depicted as diminutive and active (rather than rotund as in later pictures, (in his younger days walking countless miles and sailing)), in a pose seen in another portrait of him as shown painting the Fighting Temaraire by Daniel Maclise. Here he has a large nose with a slight upturn at the end as seen in his self portrait at age 15 or 16, a very red or (ruddy) complexion as also seen in the same self portrait - like also his father and as described in Turner's biography. (possibly this overtly noticeable redness related to the toxic metal pigments he used and his father mixed for him). Here, in the present painting, he has accentuated raised eyebrows appropriately and of relevance -as seen in an exactly similar manner to that shown in the portrait of him by Charles Turner at age 20 (who also produced a later portrait as shown below of Turner without raised eyebrows) . Turner was described as having a thin top lip , protuberant jaw and large nose, all of which seen here. (his mother's portrait making her look like a stereo typical 'witch' and it was said Turner inherited some of those traits). One can indeed compare the current portrait of him to his only 2 known photo-real depictions of him. And one would note the shape of his nose and raised eyebrows look similar, not to mention his attire - despite those pictures being at least 45 years after the present painting.
All the above notwithstanding - in strong support for this likeness to Turner and his fathers images, I show below that the painting was highly probably done in 1797, dating the sitters to ages 22 and 52, which would fit perfectly with the circumstance of the painting and their appearance. I posit that it would take a major conflation of circumstance and mis-interpretation for this painting to be any other than a portrait of Turner and his father by Joseph Farington, and that this is self evident to everyone, irrespective of their knowledge of art. I'd ask that the reader simply come to their own conclusion after contemplating images of Turner and his father including their caricatures, likenesses and contrasts.- ruddy complexions, big noses thin top lips, tidy verses untidy cravats, size, big verses small, indeed add into that their environment, the fact that they where characterized as looking like ruddy faced sailors in Turner's biography and Turner loving sailing as much as painting and indeed his father. Whilst additionally - they were metaphorically in 'the same boat' whilst 'mama' was suffering extreme mental illness at the time of the painting and Joseph Farington would have been the only artist to know them well enough to paint this picture !!.....the combination of these facts - I think all making it highly likely that this is Turner and his father.
Thus I present the evidence below that the painting was done in 1797 and show its precise location.
I think Joseph Farington is under-rated as an artist - largely because his main body of work in watercolor has faded over 250 years. He was a great observer and recorder of detail, both in his visual art and similarly in his extensive diaries, much of which are available online.
Eugene Delacroix said of Richard Parkes Bonington that he had the finest touch of any artist, and I think Faington's drawing stands comparison with Bonington's painting in this respect. It is difficult to show this here with the camera I have.
This must be one of the most intriguing paintings unearthed in modern times. In order to date it - I had to show, firstly that the landscape, as viewed, existed in 1797 - and secondly - I had to place Farington exactly at the scene of the painting in 1797. (Hastings was spread along the coast) Fortuitously Farington kept detailed diaries and sketchbooks. However the sketchbook of his 1797 trip threw a few curved balls which stumped me for more than a year. Although it is evident from his diaries that he was in Hastings in both 1785 and 1797, it was not clear exactly where he was. It would be necessary to deduce this from his very detailed sketches.. (If this painting was from 1785 - the sitters would be too young to be Turner and his father)
The first problem was that the detailed landscape of Hastings he showed in his sketchbook of 1797 no longer exists. Secondly - the landscape seen in the present painting no longer exists. Initially I did not realize this and the value of the painting rested upon the similarity of the sitters to their likenesses seen and depicted at the time by other artists and indeed their caricatures in the press together with the only known photograph of Turner and a daguerrotype albeit that the latter were only late in his life. To give substance to these likenesses one needed a date for the painting and so ages for both of the sitters. Initially therefore I could not relate the present painting with Farington's sketches..
However from lithographs, it appears that the headland shown in Farington's 1797 sketchbook was in fact 'White Rock' - and it was blown up and removed in 1834 to give a tide free route from Hastings going west to the new town of St Leonards. Moreover, a detailed painting by Grimm 1784 showed a very similar view to that shown in the present painting, overlooked by myself at the time because superficially - the view showed the area in-front of the castle to be dry land and not sea as seen in the present painting and so the picture looking quite different to the present painting, even though it was in fact a similar perspective (interestingly it does not show boats moored on a beach as shown in the present painting, [noting that Grimm's remit was to paint unusual events - perhaps the land being dry in his painting 'an unusual event'])
However going back to a map of 1250, the area shown by Grimm to be dry land is there depicted as sea, exactly as it is seen in the present painting and there, the area is called Priory Marshes and Grimm's painting is described as being 'West of the Priory'.
Significantly I have just noticed that a bridge is depicted in the present painting - just behind the sail on the line of the road heading up from the castle headland. This bridge must be 'Priory Bridge' as it appeared in 1797 and perhaps of great interest to historians of Hastings. The river beneath it was described as 100 feet wide and was culverted when modern Hastings was built to outlet on the beach as it exists today. This makes sense as it probably carved out what is depicted here as a bay with a beach with boats. (in 1797), and was probably the source of the inlet to the Haven which gave rise to Hastings as a port before 1066. Possibly the remnants of a glacial stream or outlet at the end of the last ice age. Its line into the bay can just be seen in the present painting to the right of the boats sail. Boats can be seen parked on the beach as Farington paints it, to the left of the sail.
Likewise on a map of 1795 the area is shown with two lagoons.
Thus it becomes possible to relate Farington's 1797 sketch as shown - directly to the present painting. (One can go furher than this if one wished - and actually determine the exact location of the boat in the present painting using Google 3D and triangulation from comparison between the perspectives of Grimm and the present painting) - Of particular note in the present painting is that the area of water is flat calm by comparison with the boats depicted on the horizon - which are heeling in the wind. This would suggest the water in the foreground to derive perhaps from flood (of the Priory Marsh) and not to be open sea. Hence perhaps not an everyday occurrence as is also suggested from Grimm's painting of the area looking to be far from the beach. Perhaps a spring-tide.
(lining up the headlands of Castle Hill and East Hill and the building on the headland which is also positioned in Grimm's 1784 picture as shown - on Google 3D, gives an approximate location of the bottom of Robertson Street (as shown with a yellow line)) - Perhaps the building next door to the YMCA. The present painting appears to be framed either side by what were the rocks into which tracks were carved to make a route up to the White Rock headland (blown up and removed in 1834), perhaps a wheel rut of this original track visible in the center foreground. If this is so, and it looks to be so, the water could be shallow enough for the boat to be resting on the bottom so that the portrait could be painted 'en plein air'. Hence from this it appears that Farington painted the scene in his 1797 sketchbook (as shown) from the same vantage point as the present painting but looking in the opposite direction (looking west) toward a look out point (building) on the 'White Rock' headland (the look-out point built at the same time as the 'garrison building' Farington shows at the base of the castle headland). The ruts of the track in the page from the sketch book (as shown) carved in the rock and perhaps having sea water in them from a receding tide - are probably the same rut shown at the center bottom of the present painting. Thus it appears from the above that Farington was at this precise location, and ther painting in 1797, in which case Turner would be 22 and his father William 52. It could well be that the wheel rut shown here still exists in somebody's garden !!!!!! It looks from Google that such rocks do still exists in gardens in the vicinity. Sleuths out there might like to investigate.
Perhaps belonging in the Tate or Hastings Art gallery for its totemic import to British art, not to mention Hastings.. although one might suspect The Yale Center For British Art to have an interest - having an extensive collection of Farington's work - which as its zenith in terms of subject matter - this would front, crystallize and contextualize. (Farington's formative years also spent in Maryland (now USA)). Farington's reputation in respect of accuracy in respect of landscape painting, prima facie, in the present painting shows Hastings before it rose from the sea, and its rise here observed first hand and associated with JMW Turner, who indeed is pictured floating above it as it would appear today, his eminence likewise, from this point on - both in time and location, conjoined with the rise of Hastings - which he loved and which he subsequently visited and painted numerous times and from the sea as depicted here, (the accomplished and experienced sailor that he was)..
One might even justifiably ask - is the event depicted here the birth of Hastings?. Recognized by Turner - the great man, who expounded its virtues through his famous art, especially attracting visitors from London.. Its population certainly exploded from this very time. In a map from 1795 - shown last picture above- the area shown in this painting, covered by sea to the landward, is marked on the map as an area with lagoons - fed by a river which was previously the 'Haven' of Hastings - accessed from the sea in front of the castle and this Haven together with access to the sea along the line of the river is shown with boats inland in a map from 1746 so it looks as the whole area was prone to the natural vicissitudes of hydrology including flooding. And it appears from the present painting, that what is today Hastings, is here depicted beneath the sea - and Turner. - If the sea did not come inland significantly, the line of the road shown in Grimm's painting would continue straight across the bay to the foot of the castle hill without detouring to first going inland..(It might be that the track's ruts shown in Farington's sketch-book have water in them - perhaps from a receding tide. ) So the picture, with it' s calm water, contrasting with that causing the boats to heel in the distance, is thus likely to be somewhat inland from today's seafront and this idea is supported by the fact that the headland of 'East Hill' - today always visible from the sea front and as shown in Grimm's painting, - is not shown here and it appears also that the building in front of the East Hill is in fact just visible in the present painting - its base being over the horizon of the beach - and appearing nearest to the foot of castle hill of the 2 buildings pictured there. Also - if one compares closely the detail of the houses at the foot of the castle - one can see the perspective of the present painting is different to that of Grimm's painting - supporting the idea that this picture is further inland than the point from which Grimm's perspective was produced, explaining why East Hill is not visible. One can go further and drop a line from the same point on the castle in both paintings through the same unique house in both paintings (the house with a prominent apex at the foot of the castle hill) and determine that the location of the artist in the present painting is approximately to the left of where the mule is in Grimm's painting. (as shown) - accounting for the missing headland which would be behind the castle hill in the present painting. All the above suggests the view as seen in this painting then looks to be real. The high tide shown would derive from water displaced by the collapse of the castle cliff to block the deep inlet of the harbor which existed prior. Likely not a regular occurrence to any great depth as the area is shown as being green in Grimm's picture. Combined with this evidence - cross referencing landscapes of the area produced 10 years apart, it would also be somewhat hard to believe an oversight of a missing headland in the present painting by someone who's hard won reputation relied on his accuracy. Quoting from wikipedia Farington's real forte lay in the careful, accurate topographical drawings which he prepared for the folios of engravings of British views ( such accuracy the reason he was employed by the British military to produce plans for the siege of Valenciennes)) Also, in addition to all of this, he made very accurate sketches and extensive detailed notes concerning the local topography in his 1797 Hastings sketch book (as shown below)
Having established that the painting with respect to the landscape is likely real and accurate I have just found a painting by Farington (Yale Center for British Art) as shown in the second picture above (beneath the boat as it is seen in the present painting) in which he uses an image of exactly the same boat as that depicted in the present painting -( identified by its same broken rudder arm lying on the port side stern and thus evidently accurately copied between the two paintings )- in another of his land / seascapes (at Yale) (evident from this is that he was not a sailor and thus he did not realize the significance of the rudder arm...so the boat is thus apparently initially painted and drawn statically parked on hard-standing with the rudder arm - either broken - or not attached to the rudder stock and he has transposed this to his paintings, in a very accurate manner- to cases where it is thus evident that the same boat is afloat - i.e he depiccts it without its rudder arm deployed in both the present and the Yale painting {he does say in his 1797 Hastings sketchbook that he intends specifically to draw the detail of boats on his trip to Hastings } . However in the Yale painting, although it is clear that he uses the image of the same boat - he also adds a crew similar to that seen in his similar picture of fishermen in a boat at Hastings (Christies 2013) as shown (also likely painted on his 1797 trip) but the crew in contradistinction without the detailed facial features seen in the present painting. It is thus clear that he is using the boat in the present painting merely as a prop for the portrait of the sitters, thus it not having to be painted from life with the sitters in it as pictured although it is not inconceivable that the situation might have arisen. Nevertheless of great relevance to the present painting - all the sailors (and Turner himself) are shown with long bushy hair. Whereas Turner's father is characterized here exactly as seen in his only known portrait by Linnell RA as shown, with hair (which is a wig) distinctively combed forward. (read on)
I have a similar 1850 portrait painting (of a different subject) for sale in which the clothes and setting are exactly the same but the faces of the sitter are different. - (here the clothes are also different) and also another pair of 19th century paintings in which the artist uses the same boat in different settings. So this was common practice for artists of the day......
In 1797 Turner was a 22 year old super-star - created in part by Joseph Farington. , (whilst Turner's fame exploded - his mother's health declined) who the year before had given Turner's first oil painting 'masterpiece status' by its display in the prime location at the Royal Academy summer exhibition....and to great acclaim.....
......Note thus in respect of the present painting- that in 1797 - it would have been fool-hardy, practically suicidal, to take to the sea in a sailing boat - if one didn't know what one was doing.
Why then is the character on the left wearing coat-tails ? - which would be wholly inappropriate to wear in such a boat?............I argue that it is because this is Farington's caricature of Turner in a contrived picture.........and his father contrasted and so a part of the caricature here wearing a formally tied cravat, as though at his workplace as a barber - rather than at the business of sailing (whereas Turner was known as described in his biography particularly and contrarily for his 'scruffily' tied cravats).
. To have Turner and his father in such as setting would have been a coup for any artist and would be considered so by any artist since.. .
Thus this is not necessarily a typical landscape by Farington whose business was as described above the accurate painting of landscapes for publication in lithographs and books - this commitment to accuracy suggested and supported on the occasion of this painting by his very detailed sketches and notes on Hastings and its environment in his 1797 sketch book, (the buildings seen on the very tip of the castle headland being built to house the garrison in the early 1790s in the face of the French threat) - certainly he was using the boat as a prop for the sitters and the boat is pictured too close to the shore to be afloat. ............
Given the problems with his mother's mental illness, Turner loved sailing and his father as much as he loved painting. I contest these relationships are manifest in this portrait of Turner and his father....Unique in many ways.....and by an artist who himself had unique insight and involvement in Turner's aspirations and the making of his and indeed of our world today....One only need look at a £20 note to be reminded of this......An image of Turner is like .....money in the bank.
Joseph Farington visited Hastings in 1797 and made sketches from which he was to develop paintings. His primary business was landscape painting for the purpose of making lithographs. A page from his very detailed sketch book is shown below. Mostly he produced watercolor of images which were drawn in ink - as is this painting.. (He did not paint much after 1800 after the death of his wife and although he kept a daily diary which is published - much was edited) (suggesting the present painting to be more than 200 years old). Farington played an important role in Turner's success - being responsible for hanging paintings in the most prestigious location at the Royal Academy summer exhibitions, in particular so that they would be located to be seen and sold to royalty.. And Turner's 1796 (first) oil painting was displayed prominently by Farington to huge critical acclaim at that year's exhibition.
A similar painting to the presently described painting was sold at Christies London in 2013 (£812 hammer) (although that was only a sketch of the detail of a boat and not a landscape). I show it next to the detail from the present painting above. Both entitled 'Joseph Farington' 'Boat at Hastings' on the mount. They have a similar degree of fading of the washes and age although the penned line detail is still prominent.
I purchased this painting at auction as 'Boat at Hastings by Joseph Farington'. (and this can still be found on the internet) It is clearly the same hand as seen in the Christies painting and also as evident by the rudder detail on the stern the same hand that painted the Yale picture as shown. No doubt the age related fading detracts from the subtle shades, especially the intensity of the sky and so from the composition and likewise there is some staining although fortunately it does not affect the sitters or the characteristic iconic landscape. Although the rocks in the foreground- at first appearing faded might well have had this natural color as they appear to be the 'white rock' at the foot of St.Michael's cliff, giving there appearance to the name of the area 'White Rock' - thus being an important component of the composition - and their texture and color etc. being rendered very carefully by Farington. As a matter of record and as can also be seen on-line, the auction was a stone's throw away from Sandycombe Lodge - Turner's house in London and in a dis-used theater - previously a sanitorium in the time of Turner. (I wonder if a doctor there treated Turner's mother before she was admitted to a similar establishment in 1799 - not inconceivably paid in kind with this painting)
This notwithstanding it is instructive to compare the detail of the Christies painting with the present. (and also to compare these paintings with that at Yale) - I think the gentlemen in the boat are dressed unlike the fisherman or oarsmen in the Christies' boat. The chap at the helm has his cravat tied more neatly in a bow and their brightly colored waistcoats and attire (brighter 200 years ago when painted) are unsuitable for work - or even sailing. The central figure - has 'coat tails' hanging as seen in the portrait of Turner painting by Daniel Maclise' (shown) and which would not have been worn in a sailboat as they would be heavy when wet, certainly they would be soaked walking in the shallows. Noting also that Turner's coat tails were a key feature of his caricatures in the press and sketches by other artists as they nearly reached the floor due to his short legs - making him easily identifiable - especially from behind where he was often depicted painting - and consequently standing out from the crowd. The 2 figures are central to the composition and facing the artist. I thus posit that they are the real subject of the painting and are posed for it, indeed the figures are possibly added on a later occasion. The boat is also too close to shore to be floating - and the rudder arm - a substantial piece of wood - giving leverage to the rudder of a heavy boat or against the sail in wind, as seen in the Christies' painting - in which one can see that the helmsman has to lean against it so as to steer - has here been removed so that it does not block the sitter at the helm from view. (I believe it is deliberately shown lying loose on the port-side stern as indicated in the above picture - although in the light of finding the painting at Yale one would rather believe that Farington did not actually realize the purpose of the rudder arm or - realizing it - nevertheless leaving it out of both the Yale and the present painting so as not to obstruct the helmsmen) (He could not steer the boat as it is shown - with one hand on the stub of a rudder arm) It is also seems likely that he has been depicted - not holding the rudder arm at all - which is certainly missing from the rudder - but in fact rather he has been shown holding a blade - possibly a deliberate nod to Turner's father's profession of being a barber. (It might be that the rudder arm is shown conveniently laying loose on the port side stern -primarily for logical continuity - explaining the presence of the boat so close to the shore through loss of control - close enough to the artist so that the subjects can be painted in detail from the artist's vantage point - and as a result also - the central figure is displaying a concerned expression with raised eyebrows (as seen in Charles Turner's portrait of JMWT shown) -...(This loss of the rudder arm - might have prompted a motivation for the focus of the painting as it would likely result in capsize - a dramatic event - this possibly a total fictional creation / contrivance of Farington in order to center the two sitters centrally within his landscape). (perhaps to satisfactorily explain to Turner himself - an accomplished sailor - how the portrait is to be conceived by the viewer as logically plausible) (I note since writing this that I have discovered the Yale painting and give alternate explanation for the boat having a 'broken rudder arm' based upon its observance in both the Yale painting and the present painting) - in terms of Farington's evident ignorance of the purpose or deployment of the rudder arm)
A similar painting to the presently described painting was sold at Christies London in 2013 (£812 hammer) (although that was only a sketch of the detail of a boat and not a landscape). I show it next to the detail from the present painting above. Both entitled 'Joseph Farington' 'Boat at Hastings' on the mount. They have a similar degree of fading of the washes and age although the penned line detail is still prominent.
I purchased this painting at auction as 'Boat at Hastings by Joseph Farington'. (and this can still be found on the internet) It is clearly the same hand as seen in the Christies painting and also as evident by the rudder detail on the stern the same hand that painted the Yale picture as shown. No doubt the age related fading detracts from the subtle shades, especially the intensity of the sky and so from the composition and likewise there is some staining although fortunately it does not affect the sitters or the characteristic iconic landscape. Although the rocks in the foreground- at first appearing faded might well have had this natural color as they appear to be the 'white rock' at the foot of St.Michael's cliff, giving there appearance to the name of the area 'White Rock' - thus being an important component of the composition - and their texture and color etc. being rendered very carefully by Farington. As a matter of record and as can also be seen on-line, the auction was a stone's throw away from Sandycombe Lodge - Turner's house in London and in a dis-used theater - previously a sanitorium in the time of Turner. (I wonder if a doctor there treated Turner's mother before she was admitted to a similar establishment in 1799 - not inconceivably paid in kind with this painting)
This notwithstanding it is instructive to compare the detail of the Christies painting with the present. (and also to compare these paintings with that at Yale) - I think the gentlemen in the boat are dressed unlike the fisherman or oarsmen in the Christies' boat. The chap at the helm has his cravat tied more neatly in a bow and their brightly colored waistcoats and attire (brighter 200 years ago when painted) are unsuitable for work - or even sailing. The central figure - has 'coat tails' hanging as seen in the portrait of Turner painting by Daniel Maclise' (shown) and which would not have been worn in a sailboat as they would be heavy when wet, certainly they would be soaked walking in the shallows. Noting also that Turner's coat tails were a key feature of his caricatures in the press and sketches by other artists as they nearly reached the floor due to his short legs - making him easily identifiable - especially from behind where he was often depicted painting - and consequently standing out from the crowd. The 2 figures are central to the composition and facing the artist. I thus posit that they are the real subject of the painting and are posed for it, indeed the figures are possibly added on a later occasion. The boat is also too close to shore to be floating - and the rudder arm - a substantial piece of wood - giving leverage to the rudder of a heavy boat or against the sail in wind, as seen in the Christies' painting - in which one can see that the helmsman has to lean against it so as to steer - has here been removed so that it does not block the sitter at the helm from view. (I believe it is deliberately shown lying loose on the port-side stern as indicated in the above picture - although in the light of finding the painting at Yale one would rather believe that Farington did not actually realize the purpose of the rudder arm or - realizing it - nevertheless leaving it out of both the Yale and the present painting so as not to obstruct the helmsmen) (He could not steer the boat as it is shown - with one hand on the stub of a rudder arm) It is also seems likely that he has been depicted - not holding the rudder arm at all - which is certainly missing from the rudder - but in fact rather he has been shown holding a blade - possibly a deliberate nod to Turner's father's profession of being a barber. (It might be that the rudder arm is shown conveniently laying loose on the port side stern -primarily for logical continuity - explaining the presence of the boat so close to the shore through loss of control - close enough to the artist so that the subjects can be painted in detail from the artist's vantage point - and as a result also - the central figure is displaying a concerned expression with raised eyebrows (as seen in Charles Turner's portrait of JMWT shown) -...(This loss of the rudder arm - might have prompted a motivation for the focus of the painting as it would likely result in capsize - a dramatic event - this possibly a total fictional creation / contrivance of Farington in order to center the two sitters centrally within his landscape). (perhaps to satisfactorily explain to Turner himself - an accomplished sailor - how the portrait is to be conceived by the viewer as logically plausible) (I note since writing this that I have discovered the Yale painting and give alternate explanation for the boat having a 'broken rudder arm' based upon its observance in both the Yale painting and the present painting) - in terms of Farington's evident ignorance of the purpose or deployment of the rudder arm)
Nevertheless the missing rudder arm is convenient and achieves a number of purposes - stopping the sitter being blocked by it, explaining how the boat got to where it is and giving the opportunity to place a blade in the sitters hand.
Likewise the lines to the sail are not present so that they do not obstruct the central character from view. (They are present in the Yale painting - which does not focus upon the crew) The two figures are certainly painted with more detail and facing forward unlike the crew in the other painting at Christies and are clearly not fishermen. (likewise the Yale painting lacks facial detail to the same level although one might comment that the mothers of the crew of the Yale boat might recognize their sons from the detail shown in the Yale painting). The boat in the present painting is framed against the headland in a landscape for which Farington is much better known than a painter of portraits and I suggest its accuracy can in fact be measured by comparison with Grimm's painting (shown) which was conducted 13 years previously.. (although interestingly this is the only landscape by him I can find actually described as being at (rather than near) Hastings - and moreover - this despite the place being the subject of his 1797 visit over a period of days and its associated sketchbook )( conceivably other such paintings are in private hands - although he made money from lithographs of such views - so one must assume that that was his primary purpose there on this occasion)( In fact, I wonder if this painting is not constructed later from sketches he had made on the trip. What is the likelihood that the boat should lose its rudder or the rudder neglected at the stern of the boat - and the crew stay for an artist - appropriately positioned to paint them?? More likely this painting is a synthesis of his detailed sketches as also suggested by exactly the same boat appearing in the Yale picture..If the boat was in deep enough water to be afloat, I don't think one could see the detail in the subjects faces with smoke from the pipe etc. as is seen in the present work.
More-over I suggest that if one compares the figures in the boat to the images we have of JMW Turner and his father - they are good likenesses. (The raised brows of the central character are also seen in the daguerrotype shown and an early cartoon-like drawing of the young Turner by Charles Turner entitled 'A Sweet Temper' executed in 1795 - 2 years prior to the present work (shown above and probably often overlooked because of its child-like quality which does not today or through history fit the prevailing concept of Turner - the 'giant of British art' as some kind of massive intellect)- nevertheless -it is the only portrait of Turner with emotive content and therefore raised eyebrows) (he 22 in the current image). Look also at the asymmetry in the face. Both Turner and the central subject here appear to have a wider rounder left cheek. Also of note is the diminutive size of the central figure (I posit Turner) next to the mast. Turner was described as having legs like a sparrow, probably about 5 feet to 5 feet 5inches tall in height although various estimates exist - some more flattering than others - and there is a sketch of him in the same pose - with his legs up depicting him painting the 'Fighting Temaraire' by Daniel Maclise - so this is a known 'pose' of his (shown) and perhaps the only depiction of him so. Notice his coat tails hanging down - he always being pictured with coat tails. (notice the difference between the top of his left spat and right spat in both images - this might indicate -together with the difference between left and right facial features, an asymmetry of body form between left and right halves of his body - perhaps a hallmark of artistic genius - as the right brain specializes in visual imagery). There is only one known portrait of Turner's father - a pencil sketch done by Linnell in 1812 (and that is therefore the only image we have of him) and I have shown it next to the figure at the helm. I think there is a good likeness. Moreover and significantly the likeness is added to over the likeness in that pencil sketch - especially by the red complexion, as Turner and his father were also described as having in his biography, and as described in the literature. (In the case of Turner such complexion only recalled in paint by the portrait shown - the portrait recalled from memory and not with Turner present - by Linnell in 1838) Turner was careful to avoid this red (ruddy) complexion in his self portrait as it made him look 'common' although his self-portrait at age 15 lacked this self-consciousness and does show him with a characteristic ruddy complexion as seen in the present painting.
It is noted in Turner's Biography - that he and his father looked alike and both had a particularly notable red complexion (frowned upon in social circles - as it made them look like manual workers - but perhaps more than likely arising out of them both mixing and using toxic pigments (although both also spent much time outdoors - sailing etc.) - it is thought that Turner later became deranged due to such poisoning and his eyesight become affected by it)
The 'helm' does even have red tainted hands in this painting. (His father mixing pigments for him) (And Farington (better known than Turner at the time for his detailed paintings and topographical lithographs {in fact used for this reason by the British army to sketch the defenses of Valenciennes - a town in Belgium under siege - the fine details were used to plan the attack}) -thus notably and reputedly at the time with an expert and highly practiced eye for color and detail) (Farington and Turner thus both sharing a great deal of patriotism and consequently both in good favor with the crown)
In noting the smarter appearance of the 'helm' - Turner's father was a barber and would be expected to have a neatly tied cravat - whilst Turner was recorded in his biography as always to have a 'slovenly tied cravat' and I have shown the only known photograph of Turner to support this description. One might notice the hair of the helmsman to be brushed forward as in Linnell's sketch - and of relevance to this - Fortuitously perhaps in respect of the present painting -Linnell noted in writing on the sketch (as shown) that his hair was in fact a wig - so it would appear like this whatever the age of Turner's father - as it appears here. Noting also that the helm's hair is in contradistinction to all the other sailors depicted - being brushed forward above his ears. Note also the similar attire in the present painting to Turner in the only known dagguerotype - also shown (even despite the age difference in that as compared to the present painting) and also his buttoned spats are the same as those shown by Daniel Maclise in his picture of Turner painting the fighting Temaraire. It appears that in this painting Farington is using all of these details to caricature the sitters and moreover compounding this by contrasting them between the two - particularly using these identifying features as they both here are viewed from a distance (and engaged in past-time which Turner loved).
Also in this respect - If one accepts the central figure as Turner - then one must note that he was also lampooned in the press and by some to believed to have lashed himself to the mast of a boat to experience a storm at sea. Likewise he is depicted here as the diminutive, albeit dynamic figure that he was, sitting next to the mast - in typical attire and artists pose, with his trademark coat tails hanging.... Turner said that he loved sailing more than painting.
Turner himself was a very secretive person and there is only one contemporary portrait of him as a young man - and that the self-portrait as it appears on the £20 note. However the general comment about this self-portrait at the time was that it was flattering. That portrait does not show the red complexion which he was recorded as having. He was however recorded (in addition to a red complexion - like his father) as having a large nose, narrow lips and a protuberant chin. All of these features are seen here as is the similarity in appearance to his father. His raised eyebrows are also seen in an early angry depiction of him.
Farington was perhaps Turner's closest acquaintance and was largely responsible for Turner's success through his influence at the Royal Academy....Turner giving him a painting of the lake district - a scene which Farington had prior chosen for Turner to paint (from Turner's sketch book) in a visit to Turner at his house in Maiden lane. Turner's painting for Farington is marked by Turner as such and was possibly also painted in the same year of this painting -1797. Farington is also recorded as being in the Lake District in 1797. All , including this trip to Hastings - and Turners painting from the sea at Hastings - perhaps prior to Turner's stay in the north at Otley in the same year.
I think the likeness of Turner's father's only portrait by Linnell to the helm including the added advantage of color. The facts that the boat and sitters are clearly posed and the situation and the landscape topography contrived, - the substantial rudder arm removed and placed to be visible on the port-side stern so as not to obstruct the sitter's somewhat regal pose and the use of exactly the same boat in the Yale painting, - that the figure at the mast is diminutive and the attire of both sitters and their contrast and the likeness to the sitters descriptions in literature and here all suggests that this is a portrait of Turner and his father painted by Farington - perhaps the only person who would have been close enough to both sitters to produce this painting. One might add that Turner did paint Hastings from the sea (Christies archive) and the fishermen he depicted were in boats such as that depicted here. I think it entirely possible that that painting was also painted on this same visit to Hastings. I think there is enough circumstantial evidence combined with visual detail to support the contention that this is Turner and his father in a unique portrait. Note also that the centrality and detail of the sitters is highly unusual for any painting by Farington, known almost exclusively for his landscapes. As far as is known this is the only landscape Farington produced of Hastings (and all the more surprising therefore that it does not at first appear to be true to the topography of Grimm's 1784 painting given Farington's very detailed sketchbook - despite the fact that he went there over a period of days to paint it as recorded in his diary and sketchbook. (although it would be interesting if the sea level was as Farington depicted it - being much higher than that suggested by Grimm's painting (and a year on and with the discovery that the White Rock headland was blown up in 1934 I am now thinking that Farington's landscape and elevated sea level are accurate)) Surely only Turner and his Father could interject in such a way in his main topic of business.. and one might add that the red and blue of their attire would have been positively beaming when this was first painted - even now it is brighter than the reds and blues of the similarly dated Christies' painting (and that even shown in better light). So the figures would have been much more prominent than they already are when this was first painted. (I was going to say - they would have stood out like 'sore thumbs' - and indeed their actual complexions in real life - as described in biography - appropriately might have resembled such)
More-over I suggest that if one compares the figures in the boat to the images we have of JMW Turner and his father - they are good likenesses. (The raised brows of the central character are also seen in the daguerrotype shown and an early cartoon-like drawing of the young Turner by Charles Turner entitled 'A Sweet Temper' executed in 1795 - 2 years prior to the present work (shown above and probably often overlooked because of its child-like quality which does not today or through history fit the prevailing concept of Turner - the 'giant of British art' as some kind of massive intellect)- nevertheless -it is the only portrait of Turner with emotive content and therefore raised eyebrows) (he 22 in the current image). Look also at the asymmetry in the face. Both Turner and the central subject here appear to have a wider rounder left cheek. Also of note is the diminutive size of the central figure (I posit Turner) next to the mast. Turner was described as having legs like a sparrow, probably about 5 feet to 5 feet 5inches tall in height although various estimates exist - some more flattering than others - and there is a sketch of him in the same pose - with his legs up depicting him painting the 'Fighting Temaraire' by Daniel Maclise - so this is a known 'pose' of his (shown) and perhaps the only depiction of him so. Notice his coat tails hanging down - he always being pictured with coat tails. (notice the difference between the top of his left spat and right spat in both images - this might indicate -together with the difference between left and right facial features, an asymmetry of body form between left and right halves of his body - perhaps a hallmark of artistic genius - as the right brain specializes in visual imagery). There is only one known portrait of Turner's father - a pencil sketch done by Linnell in 1812 (and that is therefore the only image we have of him) and I have shown it next to the figure at the helm. I think there is a good likeness. Moreover and significantly the likeness is added to over the likeness in that pencil sketch - especially by the red complexion, as Turner and his father were also described as having in his biography, and as described in the literature. (In the case of Turner such complexion only recalled in paint by the portrait shown - the portrait recalled from memory and not with Turner present - by Linnell in 1838) Turner was careful to avoid this red (ruddy) complexion in his self portrait as it made him look 'common' although his self-portrait at age 15 lacked this self-consciousness and does show him with a characteristic ruddy complexion as seen in the present painting.
It is noted in Turner's Biography - that he and his father looked alike and both had a particularly notable red complexion (frowned upon in social circles - as it made them look like manual workers - but perhaps more than likely arising out of them both mixing and using toxic pigments (although both also spent much time outdoors - sailing etc.) - it is thought that Turner later became deranged due to such poisoning and his eyesight become affected by it)
The 'helm' does even have red tainted hands in this painting. (His father mixing pigments for him) (And Farington (better known than Turner at the time for his detailed paintings and topographical lithographs {in fact used for this reason by the British army to sketch the defenses of Valenciennes - a town in Belgium under siege - the fine details were used to plan the attack}) -thus notably and reputedly at the time with an expert and highly practiced eye for color and detail) (Farington and Turner thus both sharing a great deal of patriotism and consequently both in good favor with the crown)
In noting the smarter appearance of the 'helm' - Turner's father was a barber and would be expected to have a neatly tied cravat - whilst Turner was recorded in his biography as always to have a 'slovenly tied cravat' and I have shown the only known photograph of Turner to support this description. One might notice the hair of the helmsman to be brushed forward as in Linnell's sketch - and of relevance to this - Fortuitously perhaps in respect of the present painting -Linnell noted in writing on the sketch (as shown) that his hair was in fact a wig - so it would appear like this whatever the age of Turner's father - as it appears here. Noting also that the helm's hair is in contradistinction to all the other sailors depicted - being brushed forward above his ears. Note also the similar attire in the present painting to Turner in the only known dagguerotype - also shown (even despite the age difference in that as compared to the present painting) and also his buttoned spats are the same as those shown by Daniel Maclise in his picture of Turner painting the fighting Temaraire. It appears that in this painting Farington is using all of these details to caricature the sitters and moreover compounding this by contrasting them between the two - particularly using these identifying features as they both here are viewed from a distance (and engaged in past-time which Turner loved).
Also in this respect - If one accepts the central figure as Turner - then one must note that he was also lampooned in the press and by some to believed to have lashed himself to the mast of a boat to experience a storm at sea. Likewise he is depicted here as the diminutive, albeit dynamic figure that he was, sitting next to the mast - in typical attire and artists pose, with his trademark coat tails hanging.... Turner said that he loved sailing more than painting.
Turner himself was a very secretive person and there is only one contemporary portrait of him as a young man - and that the self-portrait as it appears on the £20 note. However the general comment about this self-portrait at the time was that it was flattering. That portrait does not show the red complexion which he was recorded as having. He was however recorded (in addition to a red complexion - like his father) as having a large nose, narrow lips and a protuberant chin. All of these features are seen here as is the similarity in appearance to his father. His raised eyebrows are also seen in an early angry depiction of him.
Farington was perhaps Turner's closest acquaintance and was largely responsible for Turner's success through his influence at the Royal Academy....Turner giving him a painting of the lake district - a scene which Farington had prior chosen for Turner to paint (from Turner's sketch book) in a visit to Turner at his house in Maiden lane. Turner's painting for Farington is marked by Turner as such and was possibly also painted in the same year of this painting -1797. Farington is also recorded as being in the Lake District in 1797. All , including this trip to Hastings - and Turners painting from the sea at Hastings - perhaps prior to Turner's stay in the north at Otley in the same year.
I think the likeness of Turner's father's only portrait by Linnell to the helm including the added advantage of color. The facts that the boat and sitters are clearly posed and the situation and the landscape topography contrived, - the substantial rudder arm removed and placed to be visible on the port-side stern so as not to obstruct the sitter's somewhat regal pose and the use of exactly the same boat in the Yale painting, - that the figure at the mast is diminutive and the attire of both sitters and their contrast and the likeness to the sitters descriptions in literature and here all suggests that this is a portrait of Turner and his father painted by Farington - perhaps the only person who would have been close enough to both sitters to produce this painting. One might add that Turner did paint Hastings from the sea (Christies archive) and the fishermen he depicted were in boats such as that depicted here. I think it entirely possible that that painting was also painted on this same visit to Hastings. I think there is enough circumstantial evidence combined with visual detail to support the contention that this is Turner and his father in a unique portrait. Note also that the centrality and detail of the sitters is highly unusual for any painting by Farington, known almost exclusively for his landscapes. As far as is known this is the only landscape Farington produced of Hastings (and all the more surprising therefore that it does not at first appear to be true to the topography of Grimm's 1784 painting given Farington's very detailed sketchbook - despite the fact that he went there over a period of days to paint it as recorded in his diary and sketchbook. (although it would be interesting if the sea level was as Farington depicted it - being much higher than that suggested by Grimm's painting (and a year on and with the discovery that the White Rock headland was blown up in 1934 I am now thinking that Farington's landscape and elevated sea level are accurate)) Surely only Turner and his Father could interject in such a way in his main topic of business.. and one might add that the red and blue of their attire would have been positively beaming when this was first painted - even now it is brighter than the reds and blues of the similarly dated Christies' painting (and that even shown in better light). So the figures would have been much more prominent than they already are when this was first painted. (I was going to say - they would have stood out like 'sore thumbs' - and indeed their actual complexions in real life - as described in biography - appropriately might have resembled such)
Of relevance also is that we know that Turner did produce a watercolor of Hastings from the sea as shown last picture above (I removed it - will relist with it in - can be found on Christies website archive)- although un-dated - probably in a boat as depicted here judging from the painting in the Christies' archive - then possibly on this same trip to Hastings and in this very boat. The colors have survived better than Farington's 2 paintings of the occasion - probably because these are thin washes whereas Turner's colors were / are much thicker. Note that one can just see a sail boat heeling far out in the bay in Farington's painting (the present painting for sale) indicating the conditions further from the shore might be more similar to those seen in Turner's painting.)
Turner's mother at the time of this painting was suffering from severe mental illness (possibly related in part to the pigments used by Turner) and in 1799 - 2 years after this painting, she was committed to the asylum. Appropriate perhaps that Turner and his father should be close at this time.
If one weighs up the evidence - one is left with the impression that this is a unique and indeed only portrait of Turner and his father together and by Joseph Farington - an important connection in Turner's world at the time. And repeating what I said above. Do you really think Farington would paint Turner and his father 'lookalikes' centrally and being the prime subject of focus within his (only) landscape of Hastings??
(NB The authors have a PhD from the University of Bath researching the forensic analysis of degradation of materials and paint and subsequently conducted research at the Natural History Museum (London) in the same field and one of us has a degree in art and design and was Design Director of the fashion label 'Naughty' ....and so there's nothing we like better than both picking and unpicking a 220 year old mystery in a puzzle )
Most of the raw facts have been presented - the image - its authenticity and provenance are beyond denial - one can only hide from it for so long - 9 billion people can see it and make their own judgements about it - with some weight behind this picture - for example The Yale Center for British art - who are foremost experts on Farington's work - and crossing the 'T's' and dotting the 'I's' one could add a million or 2 to its value - or more.. I think the sky is probably the limit...The painting does offer a unique opportunity. I think its only a matter of time before someone wakes up and smells the cheese or even makes a film about Turner and his relation to Farington centered upon this painting.
(in passing it appears that the page from Farington's 1797 sketchbook shown below is in fact the headland at White Rock with the route west cut into it. The detailed notes there might thus pertain directly to the making of the present picture which will have been executed further to the right of that picture, nearby, at high tide. )
